I love reading the letters you send, respect to you, Do you look forward to the day the curtain will open and for the masses to be seen? Because that day will come, I can imagine the hard work to come this far!Sometimes its hard to tell who embrace the system or who are in the illusion

Just imagine finding a point of observation that would let you see all that makes mankind and life understandable. Everything that has made us what we are would come into a focused-vision that would detail the total life-spectrum of existence.

I am new to this site and have read through some posts, this one in particular gaining attention. One part of it refers to Law of the Land - Common Law, etc. It also includes a statement 'English Law', this is the bit that I am interested in as well as the content of the topic.

As we are all aware the EU is gaining momentum, regarding their exercise of control of the English, yes English people, not British, by erasing England from the EU map as was Hitlers choice during WW11.

If England and English were to be abolished would Common Law, as we are beginning to understand it, disappear also? Could it be why so many English phrases are disappearing ie 'Made in England' and so on. Even a change of brand name - English Country Life butter is now British Country Life, English Cider etc.

I read somewhere that Judges have said that Sharia law may be inevitable, is this part of the big plan to get rid of Statute Law? The NWO, the globalist view of the world, under the control of one set of fixed persecuting rules?

I am a believer in law and order, rapists, pedophiles, muggers, robbers, members of parliament and other scoundrels should not escape justice, however I have developed a rebellious nature due to the downright arrogance of authority and the way these people are programmed to make us thoroughly miserable.

Lord Denning was right corrupt power will be dealt with eventually, not the exact words but they will suffice.

Whilst I have the mood, are there any local groups, which could form up into a country wide society, I am in North Staffordshire and I am eternally grateful to a man named Dave for telling me about all this, it explains a lot about what I, and my family have suffered for years.

Water from the usual source ie the water companies, has been for a long time been an argument that I have made and currently consume distilled water derived from spring water.

I am convinced that artificially fluoridated water is very dangerous, natural fluoride is calcium fluoride which is much safer. I have included a link here to highlight this, it may be a repeat of information that readers here will already have, but it is a strong tool with which to argue about not paying for the water+ additives we are supplied with now. In fact it may be possible to argue and to prove that water in its pure state as defined as H2O, therefore any additives would mean that it would have to be described as such with the full chemical chain, descriptions for instance ammonia water, heavy water, waste water, fluoridated water etc would be more precise.

There may even be Trade Description violations regarding the description as there are laws which prevent mis description or misleading description.

According to some reports boiling, gases off chlorination so that is good news, however not so for fluoride.

Veronica wrote:A copy of the actual letter I have sent (similar to the original, above, but added to):

Thursday, 19 February 2009.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd,PO Box 234,Swindon SN38 3TW.

Dear Sirs,

Notice of Agreement of Offer and Request for Clarification.

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. The agreement is conditional. You always have the option of dragging these conditions into a court of law only to be told that they are, indeed, perfectly lawful. That is, of course, always your prerogative should you decide to waste your time.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, neither will an automated or standard reply, and consequently any such is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.

For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance.

You have apparently made demands upon me.

I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law-of-the-land and maintain my entire body of inalienable Natural Rights.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am the legal fiction person VERONICA CHAPMAN to whom your paperwork was addressed, and that I owe £606.25, upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a legal fiction person, and not a human being.

2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a 'person' actually is in legal terms.

3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a human being with a living soul and a legal fiction person actually is, in legal terms.

4. Upon proof of claim that you fully understand the difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'.

5. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction person VERONICA CHAPMAN, to whom your demand was addressed, and not human being with a living soul commonly called Veronica: of the Chapman family.

6. Upon proof of claim that your demand was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.

7. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.

8. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are employing in order to create your demand.

9. Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to, and that the legislated rules of said society covering your demand state that they apply to My Self within that named society.

10. Upon proof of claim that there is a lawfully-binding contract between your company and My Self, comprising FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties, some equally-agreed CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, a set of lawful TERMS & CONDITIONS to which both parties agree, and a handwritten SIGNATURE by both parties (or lawful representative of either party).

In the case of Thames Water, the only CONSIDERATION I would be prepared to accept would be the service of providing My Human Self with clean, healthy, fresh drinking water, free of all toxic substances, and that Thames Water should be prepared to prove the condition of the water to My Satisfaction upon reasonable demand. (I repeat, MY SATISFACTION does not mean yours, nor does it mean anyone else's. I am the one who has to drink your sludge).

The CONSIDERATION I would offer on my part would be to pay for this service. However the amount payable by My Human Self would, by necessity, be fixed by the contract, since variable amounts (uncertain amounts) void any contract in law.

In the circumstance where you may be unable to produce sight of such a contract at this time, please feel free to offer me one under the conditions described above, and I will consider it.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within (fourteen) 14 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon My Human Self, Veronica: of the Chapman family, and/or the legal fiction person VERONICA CHAPMAN, voiding any and all future offers, and creating a lawfully permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiesce for evermore. Consequent to this I would not be in dishonour by ignoring any and all future demands you may care to send, since they would have no substance in law.

(Check this with your Lawyers, making sure they have a good Law Dictionary to hand, one that comprehensively covers Common Law as well as Contract Law).

This is My Truth, and My Law.

And, furthermore, if you think that you have to right to cut off such water as I do receive, you do not. For the simple reason that it would constitute a death sentence, and I have done nothing unlawful such as to have such a sentence passed upon My Human Self by any court of law. Furthermore capital punishment was anyway abolished in 1967 in a Bill sponsored by Sidney Silverman, MP and passed by Parliament.

Hi there, i can see that this letter is a couple of years old, is it still effective, and by that i mean has the process from our side moved on or are people still using this one? ive been generally amalgamating several letters along with my own ideas for banks etc but ive just decided to take on the water and sewage people and am a newbie at that, any help gratefully received.

im familiar with the freeman principles in general and the watery confidence trick that is maritime law....

I emailed Thames Water and think I spoke with them a few years back and they confirmed that they did not currently fluoridate the water but were under legal obligation to do so if requested by the local health authority.

Received a call last year re Thames Water via call centre: May I speak with Miss Martin, pleaseNo, I'm afraid you can't. Can I confirm the first line of your addressYes, go aheadNo, I need you to tell me the addressI don't think I'm obliged to give you that informationIn that case, I can't fill in the formThat's a shame, bye, bye.

This year, two calls from a Pakistani operator:Hello, may I speak with Ms Martin?No, I'm afraid you can'tDoes she live at this address?Not at the moment, no. I might be able to get a message to her sometime, thoughOh, could you ask her to call this number xxxxxxxxxxxxxIf I can, I shallCould I have your name please?No you can't; I've helped you enough already and it's none of your business who I am

Hello, this is pradeep from thames water, may I speak with Ms Martin please?Hello, ...... hello ...........oh, this phone! and hung up

Now a red demand (unopened)

Thinking to: a) write a NO CONTRACT RETURN TO SENDER on envelope and posting back

Thinking to: c) Incorporate into body of that letter addition along the lines of:

It is my understanding that water is a right to life for everyone and everything given freely by nature to natural human beings, animals and plants. Everyone and every biological thing on this planet is made of and requires fresh clean water. To be denied water, by means of threat of stoppage of supply or extortion for unsubstantiated demands for payments to supply an already abundant resource is a) denying the right to life or b) fraudulent extortion

It is also my understanding that the human beings from a past age entrusted, in good faith, their servants, The Government, with the administrative task they agreed to honour, to provide the infrastructure for and distribution of clean fresh water to every household in the land on demand.

The costs having already been recovered on their investment to which I contributed, it would be reasonable to expect that any charges would be minimum to simply cover the cost of wages and administration without profit. Whilst this utility was rightfully in the public domain, I was charged Water Rates included with my local council rates and duly paid these on the understanding that I was receiving value for money on fresh, clean water supply.

Without permission or consent, The Government sold off the public investment already fully paid for, to private concerns and since that time, I have been charged exorbitant fees for which Thames Water Utilities expect to be compensated, without means or measure as to what, exactly, I am supposed to be paying for. In the past, I errantly assumed it was for clean fresh water at a reasonable administrative charge.

I was not consulted personally on the privatisation of a public resource which has been available to man since the dawn of time for no charge whatsoever. I would not have agreed if I had been. I certainly would not have paid a government to sell off public property and investment for the purposes of private profit. I do not and never have had a contract with THAMES WATER UTILITIES. I note that Kemble Water Limited owns Thames Water Limited and is a subsiduary of Kemble Holdings Limited, whose investors are (with some Macquirie infrastructure funds along the way) Macqaurie Europe. I have certainly never formed a contract with any of these unknown entities either and neither have they approached me with an offer to enter into a contract. There is no common sense to my agreeing to pay a European corporate entity in whom I have no interest.

We have established the premise that clean fresh water is freely available and my lawful right to access and that I have, in the past, together with my forebears and fellow countrymen, invested for the sake of convenience, in the infrastructure to enable supply into my household rather than having a well in the garden or direct supply into the household therefrom.

Thames Water do not supply fresh clean water and never have. Thames Water recycle poisoned, polluted and denatured water from sewage and attempt to extort money from people who have paid handsomely for the provision of fresh clean water decades ago. Thames Water are defrauding the public investors. Thames water are wilfully poisoning the public for personal profit.

As I do not, by common sense or conscience, agree to be poisoned I can hardly justify paying further for such a threat to my health.

I have received unsolicited calls from person or persons unknown in Pakistan, claiming to be Thames Water. I was wondering if the chemical toxins such as fluoride had taken their toll at last and I was hallucinating.

People residing in the Thames region, having paid for the extraction, purification and supply of water, should expect to communicate with their employees in and of their own land. Has Thames Water Utilities noticed the unemployment rising amongst their investors, the English public? I think it wholly dishonourable to employ a stranger in a foreign land to make unsolicited calls to me on my behalf when at the very least, I could employ a neighbour to do so should I feel so inclined. I and my fellow countrymen have the right to demand that we are served by eachother in rendering a service in which we have heavily invested and is already paid in full.

To wit, Thames Water are seemingly making some demand that I pay a European company via a Pakistani operative on the basis of assumption that I have contracted to do so.

I do not understand any of this and write in the hope of a rational explanation.

Hi all...I used similar letters to Veronica's letters posted on this forum last year as I refuse to pay Severn Trent for the poisioned water they supply. sent 2 letters last one being the Estoppel. Have not heard anything for over a year! Untill last week they sent a notice of court action and gave me 14 days to pay. Just wondering if anyone else is in the same position? Or if anyone can offer advice as to what to do next? Shall I bill them and enclose the estoppel notice? Bit worried that I have not done this correctly. Any advice offered will be welcomed...Thanks :)

I know the Notice's are based upon a Demand for unpaid or outstanding Bills/Balances. What I am doing is, I want to send the utility companies edited versions of the Notice where I am ceasing to pay these demands until the requirements in the Notice are fulfilled.

I have also sent off my Oath to one of the Barons who envoked Article 61 of The Magna Carta, along with notices to The PM, Derbyshire Chief of Police, Derbyshire Police & Crime Commissioner, Derby City Council & my local Councillor.The current version of the (Veronicas) Notice...Sections to edit are in BOLD

Dear Sirs,

Notice of Agreement of Offer and Request for Clarification.

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. The agreement is conditional. You always have the option of dragging these conditions into a court of law only to be told that they are, indeed, perfectly lawful. That is, of course, always your prerogative should you decide to waste your time.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, neither will an automated or standard reply, and consequently any such is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.

For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance.

You have apparently made demands upon me.

I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law-of-the-land and maintain my entire body of inalienable Natural Rights.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am the legal fiction person VERONICA CHAPMAN to whom your paperwork was addressed, and that I owe £606.25, upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a legal fiction person, and not a human being.

2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a 'person' actually is in legal terms.

3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a human being with a living soul and a legal fiction person actually is, in legal terms.

4. Upon proof of claim that you fully understand the difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'.

5. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction person VERONICA CHAPMAN, to whom your demand was addressed, and not human being with a living soul commonly called Veronica: of the Chapman family.

6. Upon proof of claim that your demand was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.

7. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.

8. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are employing in order to create your demand.

9. Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to, and that the legislated rules of said society covering your demand state that they apply to My Self within that named society.

10. Upon proof of claim that there is a lawfully-binding contract between your company and My Self, comprising FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties, some equally-agreed CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, a set of lawful TERMS & CONDITIONS to which both parties agree, and a handwritten SIGNATURE by both parties (or lawful representative of either party).

In the case of Thames Water, the only CONSIDERATION I would be prepared to accept would be the service of providing My Human Self with clean, healthy, fresh drinking water, free of all toxic substances, and that Thames Water should be prepared to prove the condition of the water to My Satisfaction upon reasonable demand. (I repeat, MY SATISFACTION does not mean yours, nor does it mean anyone else's. I am the one who has to drink your sludge).

The CONSIDERATION I would offer on my part would be to pay for this service. However the amount payable by My Human Self would, by necessity, be fixed by the contract, since variable amounts (uncertain amounts) void any contract in law.

In the circumstance where you may be unable to produce sight of such a contract at this time, please feel free to offer me one under the conditions described above, and I will consider it.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within (fourteen) 14 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon My Human Self, Veronica: of the Chapman family, and/or the legal fiction person VERONICA CHAPMAN, voiding any and all future offers, and creating a lawfully permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiesce for evermore. Consequent to this I would not be in dishonour by ignoring any and all future demands you may care to send, since they would have no substance in law.

(Check this with your Lawyers, making sure they have a good Law Dictionary to hand, one that comprehensively covers Common Law as well as Contract Law).

This is My Truth, and My Law.

And, furthermore, if you think that you have to right to cut off such water as I do receive, you do not. For the simple reason that it would constitute a death sentence, and I have done nothing unlawful such as to have such a sentence passed upon My Human Self by any court of law. Furthermore capital punishment was anyway abolished in 1967 in a Bill sponsored by Sidney Silverman, MP and passed by Parliament.

YOU HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO 7 DAYS IN HMP Eastwood park....FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

To prevent loss of liberty and the embarrassment of a Police officer/Enforcement officer arresting you, you are strongly advised to contact

YEOVIL COUNTY COURT WITHIN THE NEXT 48 HOURS FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOU BEING ARRESTED.

Mr. MarkeyCounty Court AgentYeovil County CourtTel........

Danielle, being a very naughty rebel indeed, decided she didn't want to consent to 7 days in prison. She was advised to contact Mr. Markey to give her just a little more time to draft the following Notice and serve it to begin the rebuttal process, which she did.Being a sweet talker she convinced Mr. Markey that she needed a couple of weeks to convene a meeting with the so called court in Yeovil.....instead she wrote and served this up:

To : Mr. Markey (doing business as Court Enforcement Agent).Yeovil County CourtThe Law CourtsPelllers WayYeovilBA20 1SW

From: Danielle...Address.....

Case reference number 3JA10324

Date Notice served: 20th January 2015.

Sent by special delivery.

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. Notice to agent is notice to principle, Notice to principle is notice to agent

Dear Mr. Markey, I am writing to you after receiving a letter of arrest and imprisonment for seven days for contempt of court.

Whereas I, Danielle Delioness do Not consent to the presumed jurisdiction of Yeovil County Court nor does your service have jurisdiction to lawfully carry out an arrest warrant for contempt of court whilst the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 is in effect and, that I Danielle Delioness (the living woman), stand fully behind the committee of the Barons whom invoked said article, which is the constitutional duty of ALL British subjects at this time. Not to do so would be ancillary to treason, therefore, enforcement of the detainment of Danielle Delioness would be an act of unlawful kidnap at common law.

Any hearing must be conducted in a properly convened Court de Jure so that justice can be seen to be done. I demand remedy under due process of law where constitutional law is fully observed.

Please be aware that this is a 'Notice of conditional acceptance' it informs you and means what it says. The matter raised herein is of a very serious nature and requires your immediate and urgent response.

Please also be aware that the fact that this 'Notice of conditional acceptance' is hand written does Not detract its validity under the common law. This document may be used as evidence in my defense.

Definition of a Notice:A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact has reason to know it, or has been given notification of it.

A reply in full to this notice is required within five (5) days from receipt of it.

Failure to reply to this Notice in 'substance' (meaning to respond to the points raised) shall be deemed to mean that they/you are in full agreement with all the points of law raised herein and, that no further actions will be taken against I Danielle Delioness nor the legal fiction that I lawfully reject to represent and, that I have 'lawful excuse' to do so.

Whereas you may be in ignorance of the evidential, thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked according to the correct protocols of British Constitutional Law on the 23rd day of March 2001 and, which stands to this day as the political position of the British Isles and Commonwealth.

TAKE NOTICE THAT: This fact was reported in the Daily Telegraph by Caroline Davies on the 24th March 2001 and can be seen online under the title of 'peers petition Queen on Europe' and, that we are all responsible 'individually' to comply with the law and that there is No defense in law by pleading ignorance.

It is the common law duty of all British subjects to defend the Common Law and to stand under article 61 when it has been invoked. Therefore;

1. I conditionally accept that Yeovil County Court has the authority to carry out its threats against me and, that I have a lawful obligation to comply to its orders on proof being provided, in substance, and within the reasonable time allotted, that Yeovil County Court and 'HM courts and tribunals service', can lawfully make such demands whilst article 61 of Magna Carta is currently in effect.

2. That Yeovil County Court is functioning under the constraints of the British Constitution and that the Crown has any authority whatsoever in these treacherous times.

I Danielle Delioness do have 'lawful excuse' to reject, distress and rebel peacefully and entirely lawfully under the protection of Constitutional law. Anyone who would seek to deprive me of due process under constitutional law will be committing a very serious offence indeed.

Mr. Markey, I urge you strongly to investigate the facts referred to herein. I do urge you to stand in defense of the British Constitution and under Article 61 yourself.

Without malice, frivolity or ill will, with all my inalienable Rights reserved and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

Any response is required to be made on penalty of perjury and on your personal commercial liability.